| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Xquic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Disambiguation Page Needed
editThe Blood Moon page redirects here. "Blood moon" is also another name for a "Hunter's Moon", which is the first full moon in October. There needs to be a disambiguation page for the term "Blood Moon". Does anyone know how to make one?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heddron (talk • contribs) 7 October 2006.
Merge with Hero Twins
editThere does not seem to be a reason not to merge this article with that on the hero twins, where the entire story of the twins is set out in great detail.131.211.214.61 14:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Comparative religion
editI removed the recently added comparative religion section, this seemed quite apparent original research and original synthesis. In this case, there is no actual connection between Xquic and Old World deities/mythology such as Isis, and saying "Isis may be equivalent to Xquic" has no real meaning or validity. Insofar as there is a point to comparing disparate and separated mythologies, it is more a reductive exercise and attempt to identify underlying common principles and motivations, not to portray or suppose there is some actual historical influence or connection where there clearly was nothing of the kind. Such comparative mythology exercises should be left to published scholars not wikipedia editors, and are out-of-place in articles like this. Also, statements which claim that elephant-like animals persisted here up to the time when Maya monuments were being built and thereby suggesting an origin to supposed elephantine depictions are clearly not supported by any contemporary Mayanist scholar. The cite given was for a 1924 article in The Burlington Magazine, that quoted diffusionist views of Grafton Elliot Smith—views that were pretty much discredited even at the time, let alone in the present era of research. It is quite misleading to rely on such an evidently outdated and fringe viewpoint.
The section on appearances in the Borgia codex was also removed, I doubt very much that León-Portilla identifies Xquic as a figure in that codex, which after all is a central Mexican codex, not K'iche'Maya. Again, this very much appears as an original, unsubstantiated interpretation that would not be found in reliably published sources.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)